Skip to main content
6:00 am
copy change. we are hesitant to create more work for the commission as well. it is an interesting idea to make it an exception and that's something we are open to and open to recommendation from the commission to be able to work on that. >> i think i would be in support of that. and not going through the cost of replacing that there is a cost of going through the c u too. that one size fits all may not work. having the zone or commissioner is one way to go. >> the distinctions the city is able to make for people who want signs, these are not general advertising signs. i
6:01 am
think that was obviously very important as well. that's something we can continue to work on but my understanding is that is a bit of a challenge. >> the historic issue, with mr. vettel's where that name has been changed over the years and the copy isn't significant anymore but the architectural element, that's one case, but the copy is significant even though they are not the tenant anymore. we wouldn't want someone to come in and change the copy. the historic aspect needs to be looked at where the copies in historic, we shouldn't allow the copy to be changed where it's an architectural copy to the changed over the years is something to consider. >> the northeast legislation over the last two years, we'll
6:02 am
be happy to sit down with mr. vettel to look at the language how it's raised and see how this legislation is a piece at this point. >> i think especially from the point of view of a small business it's really practical and i thank mr. miguel for the example he gave. i work in chinatown and think about an owner that maybe put together all of their money to buy a business and not even aware that their sign is non-complying. they brought up issue of formula retail and all the examples of signs. some of those signs may have been conforming, i don't know which were and which weren't. but i think we should maybe focus on changing the sign regulations as opposed to fixings it
6:03 am
through this legislation as to size and height of signs that need to be changed in certain neighborhoods where that would be with article 6 and the formula on the retail issue, the controls are getting stronger and trending toward even stronger control. so i think formula retail signs only come if formula retail come. i am supportive of the legislation and of the question of architecturely significant signs and would encourage the supervisors office to figure something out. commissioner moore? >> just hearing commissioner wu speak i would like to you think about the sign in chinatown which could be down very quickly without additional approval. i would like to you think about a change in sign.
6:04 am
>> this is a subject for another day and it goes beyond signs not to make things more complicated but there are many cities throughout our nation that have architectural review and they kind of make the building that are built there conformity architecturely to the areas they are in even some gas stations. we usually have buildings that have been something else in the past that are being changed so this is a little bit more difficult. you see these more in places where these are built new but it helps to make it more acceptable to the eye that they don't stand out as being the golden arches where you may see. they are a little bit different but that might be something we think about when we look at the sign approval process to see how appropriate the sign is in the context of
6:05 am
the neighborhood obviously grandfathering existing signs are fine especially if they are historic in nature and we are only changing the name there where that's appropriate. but signs that are a little garish is something i hope we have the ability to look at that. is this an item for we do not have a motion. >> i move with staff recommendations including i think we already have some recommendations as to historic aspect if i'm not mistaken? we do not. >> we can add that. >> i would add, we are talking about historic buildings on historic structures where we
6:06 am
are just changing the signs, but not the font of the sign, just replacing with the same. >> could the city attorney perhaps help phrase this. this is not about historic building but architecturely significant buildings. there is a subtlety in language here and unless somebody makes this motion there is a proper verbiage to what is on this discussion. >> i think i'm a little unclear as to what amendment you are seek ing to make. right now as it's drafted the changes do not apply to article 11. for example girardily, if they wanted to use this revision they would not be able to do so because it is a landmark
6:07 am
building. >> but the same adipose goes through with brannan. as an example, if it was, you couldn't change the copy of that sign even though the copy has been changed over the years. >> for the 888 brannan that is not subject to article 1011. >> let's say it was? >> if it was this legislation would not apply and they would not be able to change the copy. the point of us putting in the change that doesn't apply to article 10 or 11, those signs may not be code complying, cannot be replaced. >> i think that's the problem we are in with 888 brannan. if we add language in where the sign is architecturely significant and/or the copy. >> this is something that should be done in separate
6:08 am
legislation and it hasn't been considered as part of this process. i know mr. vettel submitted a letter. there are other remedies to this as well. now that zoning has changed it has a lower sign height limit and that maybe we can now allow a sign that is taller at that location. i'm not sure of a procedure where we can allow brannan to replace the sign. >> one other thing that vettel had mentioned that there is no sign. we need to seek proof that you have a sign permit. to address that concern you can say buildings that have been determined historic resources and prior to the sign ordinance, they can liftoff the
6:09 am
top of his head, the date thachltd as that hand, happened, that would solve the problem. >> okay. keep that thought. >> commissioner moore. >> while we were encourageing the legislation i was expecting there would be more work done between the supervisors office sog some of the things we are trying to formulate and some of the comments made by san francisco beautiful and some of them might cause away because it never could or will but there is some language missing to protect us and get us on the slippery slope. >> commissioner?
6:10 am
>> yeah. i definitely support that. if we can incorporate language around to the effect that you just mentioned for older buildings who have signs that may not be able to produce proof of their legitimacy of their permit process we didn't firm things into place until the 60s. i understand it's from the early 1900s. in terms of these other recommendations, i think we make a recommendation that supervisors continue to work with interest party related to its conditional use but we wouldn't put that in the language of our specific recommendation but as a
6:11 am
secondary we continue to look for supervisors to work with the issue. >> i think the commissioner would try to make the motion that would include an item where a building had a sign that predates any kind of sign ordinance and is being replaced merely for identification purposes but probably not be articles 10 and 11 buildings. it's one of the signs that is not protected but it's been there forever. that's kind of what i'm saying in my motion, if that's understandable? >> sure. to take the test recommendation and to also add that to allow siebs that were installed prior to the sign ordinance or some other date, that makes sense to be subject to allow the copy to make with some evidence which is
6:12 am
photographic evidence >> to look at possible approval. to approval by staff. it's not part of our recommendation. i would encourage it to be. i don't know if the commission is there on that issue. that was one of the options in order to a veil
6:13 am
themselves. >> i think it could be a zoning administrator? any sign. >> i didn't hear that every sign. >> we talked about the zone administrator too. take advantage of the changing copy it would be approved by the zoning administrator. >> by the department. >> it has to be permitted. >> one of the options which is administrative copy. the difference would have to a planning commission for each and every sign that wants to change copy on a non-conforming sign. >> i would not be supportive of
6:14 am
a hearing. there is enough protection from staff with the permitting process that would apply with those signs that might fit that category. >> i would be happy to talk about how this would be implemented and discuss that further. >> i think i will leave that to the department. bull butt i believe it goes to the process of staff and the head of current planning. commissioner
6:15 am
moore, >> could you repeat is it staff working or supervisor working? the originator of this legislation? >> the supervising staff. excuse me, i apologize. >> commissioner moore? aye, commissioner wu? aye. this motion passes unanimously. next item is no. 10. an ordinance that would amend
6:16 am
6:17 am
>> as you see the corner in general has a lot of liquor licenses. that's why our office worked with the lower polk association and worked with the knob hill residents to work how to deal with the quality of life issues created by the liquor proliferation of polk street.
6:18 am
we crafted this lower polk street rud, using other models, our legislation would prohibit new bars and liquor stores in the rud region. would also prohibit, continue to prohibit tobacco shops. new restaurants coming in, seeking 47 permits would be allowed. but not to be open past midnight. and entertainment would be permitted through continual use. i want to stress that we create flexibility to transfer their liquor licenses. that we thought would be an important component of protecting the businesses in the corner. this is in some other ruds and
6:19 am
sud's but not all of them. and thought it was important to include. since we entered the legislation in october, we met way lot of stakeholders in the community. and attended neighborhood association meetings and appeared before the small business commission and the entertainment commission. which have recommendedapproval, and that we look at density control in lieu of a finite cap for bars. small business and entertainment have recommended 100 feet as does the planning department. with these recommendations we have asked sophie hayward from the planning department to evaluate the density controls as a policy alternative to the cap on bars. this following map --
6:20 am
so this following map created by sophie and the planning department illustrates how essentially a 300 feet control would be the same as equivalent of a cap. no new permits could come in with a 300 feet control. but 150 control would allow new licenses to come in on polk street and the south of this corridor. our office have discusseded this option with the lower polk street association and existing bar and restaurant owners in the corridor and others in the
6:21 am
california association. while the neighborhood association favored an out-right cap for the control. and something that we discussed last evening. we have heard from stakeholders this could be a policy alternative to the cap. to address saturation of the liquor licenses in the region without fully prohibiting new bars into the region. thus we are looking at 100 feet density control that staff recommended. but we probably would like to see the control codified as being discretionary. i want to close that our legislation is not to diminish night life in the corridor. we have heard from residents that they don't want to see vacancies and not enough businesses to support the
6:22 am
neighborhood. that being said we want to take a pro-active approach to keep lower polk diverse and i am happy to take questions after sophie's presentation. >> good evening, we recommend that you go to the board with modifications. the proposed ordinance would amend 723 to extend the existing restriction on tobacco paraphernalia establishes. and extend that for three years and provide to the buffer on the c.d. i extended a map and to the public. and the third mile shows the extent of that quarter mile
6:23 am
buffer. the second piece of the legislation would be 788, the lower polk alcohol district. and as indicated it would be along polk to the north and to o'farrell to the south but not the parcels that front on california or o'farrell. and from van ness to the left but not include the let's on van ness or larkin. this will overlap with the rc-4 and mc-3 zoning districts. within the new proposed lower polk alcohol pud, with these restrik -- restrictions to
6:24 am
apply. liquor establishes would be considered an abandons use if the bar is not in operation for 180 days or more. and this would not provide to limited live performance permits. and new restrictions not to be open after midnight. i would like to outline the department modifications. first remove the tobacco paraphernalia restriction. as the commission knows it's very difficult for the department to distinguish between the sale of tobacco paraphernalia as a land use distinct from any other retail space. and particularly in the polk street ucd the existence of a
6:25 am
tobacco paraphernalia establishment. what that means that the presence of one pipe establishes the establishment from retail space to tobacco that is prohibited. that means that an owner could change his shelves within minutes. and secondly this was establish in 2008. any store in legal operation of tobacco paraphernalia prior to 2008 would be able to continue. and for the same reasons it's difficult to establish whether or not a retail space was in operation as a legally tobacco paraphernalia to 2008. that's the reason why we recommend removing this restriction from the existing polk street ncd. the second recommendation has to do with the lower polk alcohol.
6:26 am
that new liquor licenses would be allowed with continued use by this commission. however we suggest adding specific findings to allow the cud. and we recommend to amend section 303 of the planning code to add a finding that a new bar is within 100 feet of a parcel on which an existing bar is located. and secondly we recommend that the planning commission adopt a policy that the department's recommendation to you, to this commission, as part of the continual use operation would be disapproval of bars proposed of 100 feet of existing bars. that gives you the exception to recommend or not but our default is disapproval. this would trigger close examination and analaysis of bas in the proposed district.
6:27 am
but allows of approval of the planning commission and establishments of areas not permanently saturated and appropriate of new businesses. along those lines i want to make note of the maps that are available for the public. that is that the data we have for the abc licenses is not our data. it's from the abc website. and it's not 100% accurate in terms of location. all of that data would need to be field checked if any density controls were in place. and that's why we wanted to make sure that if a concentration is incorporated into the rules, it's by parcel and not by the specific location of the dot on the map. we also recommend that we modify the proposed abandonment period to three years.
6:28 am
that's the standard three years we use as a period after a use is discontinued or abandoned outlining ed in planning code. and lastly we recommend that the closing of midnight. the department believes that remaining open at the same time that bars that bona fide restaurants for the finding of the amendment, and keeping eyes on the street and providing alternative to bars and liquor for food. the staff has a response by the small business commission. which i included in your packets. and they recommended approval of density of concentration of existing bars be krconsidered. and the second is a letter of opposition submitted by mrs. chapman, and i believe she's
6:29 am
here today there. that concludes my presentation. >> opening up for public comment. i have three speaker cards. stephon karnell. sean marsinic. whoever is ready. >> robert garcia, i live in malone hill history hotel and apartment district. eight square blocks, we have 293 buildings on the national registry of historic places. it's the most densely populated area west of new york city. most of the people that live here are working people. we are being affected by what happens on polk street. tremendously. especially with the bussing in from people from the college

March 20, 2013 6:00am-6:30am PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY Brannan 4, Moore 4, Us 3, California 2, Abc 2, Wu 2, Mr. Vettel 2, Sophie 2, Chinatown 2, The City 1, Ncd 1, San Francisco 1, New York City 1, Sophie Hayward 1, Malone 1, Stephon Karnell 1, Mrs. Chapman 1, Robert Garcia 1, Sean Marsinic 1, Recommendedapproval 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color